Yes campaign should give us hard facts, not vague promises

Until the debate began there were concerns being voiced about how we can continue with free care for the elderly, free university tuition and free prescriptions. Presumably those concerns are still out there?

How is it to be paid for? Who are the economic geniuses who will lead us all to the promised land? Their names do not readily spring to mind. Surely if such people were part of the Yes campaign we would be being told the how of it?

By merely rubbishing statements made by those who have earned their reputations as experts in their fields, for example the Canadian Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, and Lord George Robertson, the Yes campaign would seem to have nothing useful to say. Will any of the 7000 employed through Trident be voting Yes?

I want to know how independence would enhance my life and the lives of my family, friends, neighbours and the community I live in.

Maybe we should all vote Yes in the hope that Scotland will be a land of milk and honey simply because enough people put a cross for independence. Or then again, maybe not.

Margaret Kay,

5 Gainburn View, Condorrat.

ANDREW McKie makes a very compelling case for keeping the Union in his shrewd article which outlined some of the anomalies and irritations in the current debate ("Why I believe it makes little sense to unravel the Union", The Herald, April 17). He rightly highlights that the Yes campaign has, to date, skilfully avoided the need to present the burden of proof for the seismic change it is advocating. In similar vein he illustrates that the First Minister when challenged on issues like the EU, a currency union, defence contracts, and the views of the CBI as presented by the director Scotland, merely says that such opinions are wrong or just "bluster".

Contradictions are not policies, and with only five months to go to D-Day the people of Scotland need a much clearer understanding of what independence will actually mean. It is surely not going to hinge on the level of child care provision in the early years?

Ronald J Sandford,

1 Scott Garden, Kingsbarns.

MUCH as I sympathise with those who intend to vote Yes in the September referendum because they fear the prospect of a Conservative victory in next year's General Election, I cannot bring myself to do so, the likely outcome of an SNP victory being uncertainty, confusion and perhaps even turmoil.

The other factor is my refusal to endorse the Nationalists' campaign strategy of intimidation and fabrication. Such tactics would not bode well for the successful outcome of pre-independence negotiations. The SNP may think that they can get away with bullying those who hold differing opinions at this stage of the campaign, but they would soon find out that a similar stratagem would not work with Westminster, the European Union and Nato.

John Milne,

9 Ardgowan Drive, Uddingston.

IN recent times there has been an increasing tendency in sections of the media to give prominence to the fact that some large company has "expressed its view" on a matter of political or economic interest, as if such an opinion carried special weight because it came from a business rather than from individuals.

It is merely stating the obvious to point out that companies are not sentient beings, and are incapable of forming considered opinions on anything at all. In almost every case such "business" opinions will be the personal views of the chairman or chief executive, who by inclination may take a conservative approach (with either a small or capital C) to the issue in question. In some cases it is possible that other board members and senior employees may have been consulted before issuing the public statement, but certainly not all the individual employees of that company. So how can the stated opinion be represented as "the view of the company?

This reservation applies even more to composites such as the Confeder­ation of British Industry (CBI) or the Institute of Directors (IOD) claiming to represent the views of a large number of businesses, either in a particular sector or more generally ("More CBI members to resign as No vote row escalates", The Herald, April 21). Unless the CBI has canvassed the views of all its members in a detailed questionnaire and can demonstrate overwhelming support, its opinion on Scottish independence is of no more significance than that of any individual voter.

Business for Scotland perhaps has more credibility in that every one of the 1700 companies it represents has already indicated support for independence, but even then this is presumably only the view of the owners or senior directors of each company, not necessarily reflecting the majority view of all its employees, all of whom are an integral part of the business.

Large companies and those who represent business groups always have ready access to the media, and their comments are taken seriously and given wide publicity. But the Scottish voters, who are the only people able to decide the issue of independence, should be aware of their probable source and the vested interests involved and should not be unduly influenced by such opinions.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court,

Glasgow.

PHIL Miller raises many excellent points in his Inside Track article ("Has acclaimed referendum show been shelved?" The Herald, April 19). It does seem strange, to say the least, that after spending large amounts of money on the three-part docu­mentary series The Road to Referen­dum, STV has no plans to update the third episode and broadcast the series again during this time of unprecedented interest in Scottish politics.

Why is this the case? Does STV feel that the content of the original series was so independence-friendly that it would be compromising its impartiality by making an update? Surely the broadcaster has not been "leaned on"?

STV has recently left the CBI in order to preserve its political impartiality. I think another way to show this is to be at the vanguard of high-quality political programming. Therefore, I call upon STV to have the courage of its convictions, resist any undue surreptitious pressure and show a new, updated version of The Road to Referendum. Broadcast and be damned.

Alan Carroll,

24 The Quadrant,

Clarkston,

Glasgow.

ALAN Taylor's claim (Letters, April 21) that "the insistence by the SNP to disallow the devo-max choice in the vote" requires a robust denial.

Not only is this untrue, but when Alex Salmond made statements suggesting the SNP was happy to consider a devo-max option, many commentators jibed that this was him wanting a consolation prize if independence were to be rejected. It was, in fact, David Cameron who blocked the inclusion of a second question in the Referendum.

Dr Willie Wilson,

57 Gallowhill Road,

Lenzie.